The ideal scenario is standardizing the quality of education so the "anyone can have them" scenario causes hiring practices to be a mirror of demographics.
Obviously that's a dream though. There are states that still teach intelligent design, I can't even imagine how a schooling system that does that can even approach tackling inequality between schooling districts, soooo .... yeah
Then you need to get your "hearing" fixed. Separate but equal says there inherent differences between the genders so it's reasonable to discriminate based on that. I'm not saying that at all.
'Hearing' is fine, thanks.
Saying one student is ahead of the curve and one is behind is placing an 'inherent' label on their ability to compete, even if it doesn't come down to the actual abilities of the student.
Based on what you wrote you're advocating the system create a 'separate' path for underachievers, who in the context of this discussion are minorities, that is equal to the education of the overachievers, in this context largely the white majority.
Quote:
Rather, I'm saying starting behind the curve isn't a reason to hold back those that are starting ahead of the curve in terms of education and scholarly ability. I think everyone is better off if those ahead of the curve in this way can compete fairly for the best education for those people, while providing people without those advantages an education that takes into account this fact and fills in the educational gap.
Is there any evidence that people 'ahead of the curve' are losing out on education opportunities because of a quota system in higher education?
Interesting article on why Trump's huge conflicts of interest aren't illegal.
Several people have asked me why the federal conflicts of interest law, which bars every lowly executive branch official from acting on matters that affect their personal financial interests, won’t apply to President Donald Trump.
To find out answers to that and related inquiries, I did some research and also spoke to Richard Painter and Norman Eisen, the former top White House ethics counsels for George W. Bush (2005-2007) and Barack Obama (2009-2011). Here are the answers.
Why doesn’t the federal conflicts of interest law apply to the President?
Congress was most likely avoiding direct confrontations between branches of government, which would also raise Constitutional issues.
Affirmative action should help overcome or remove those barriers until such barriers aren't around to need to be removed anymore.
But how do we determine which gender disparities are caused by barriers and which are caused by more subtle socialization differences or even innate difference?
Why are teachers predominantly women? Systematic discrimination against male teachers? Of all jobs where we would want gender parity, wouldn't teaching be at the forefront? Especially in an era when boys are doing worse and worse than girls at every grade, and the gender gap in post-secondary education is getting wider and wider.
Should we be offering scholarships to make it easier for men to get into medical school? Women now make up 60 per cent of medical school graduates which, aside from any other considerations, is a major factor in the family doctor shortage, as women doctors work substantially fewer hours than male doctors and are much more likely to take extended breaks from their practice.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Saying one student is ahead of the curve and one is behind is placing an 'inherent' label on their ability to compete, even if it doesn't come down to the actual abilities of the student.
If competition doesn't reflect the abilities of the students, then the competition needs to be revised so that it does.
I'm not at all convinced that the actual abilities of the student at that point in time are not reflected in their scores on entrance exams and the like.
Quote:
Based on what you wrote you're advocating the system create a 'separate' path for underachievers, who in the context of this discussion are minorities, that is equal to the education of the overachievers, in this context largely the white majority.
Doesn't have to be completely separate. It could be a simple a adding a few extra courses, or reducing the course load, with everything else being the same. In this case it's not just minorities in terms of race that I'm talking about. Children of the white working class would be in largely the same bucket.
This is mostly a class issue. The elite positions are going to asians and well off whites (the richest groups in america, who thereby can afford to buy their children a better education), but that doesn't mean the rest of the population shouldn't have the opportunity to catch up. I propose the multiple tracks because it lets the rest of the population do just that without artificially holding back the kids that had more advantages early in life.
We already do this routinely in grade level schools, with the goals being much the same.
Quote:
Is there any evidence that people 'ahead of the curve' are losing out on education opportunities because of a quota system in higher education?
Depends on what you mean by education opportunities. The advantaged will get an education somewhere, regardless. The question is will it be as as good on average for both groups? Do people behind the curve do as well in elite programs as those that are ahead. Do those behind the curve do as well after graduating in such a case as those that did better in less elite programs. Anecdotally at least, the answer is no to both of these questions.
Should we be offering scholarships to make it easier for men to get into medical school? Women now make up 60 per cent of medical school graduates which, aside from any other considerations, is a major factor in the family doctor shortage, as women doctors work substantially fewer hours than male doctors and are much more likely to take extended breaks from their practice.
Pertinent to my last point, are men's entrance rates 40% of womens, or are women just more likely to stick through medical school and graduate?
The factors in between are likely much more complicated, but if men are entering medical school at the same (or greater) rate than women, it should be determined why they are graduating less than women.
Historically, affirmative action is in place to combat barriers to entry, not to graduation.
Pertinent to my last point, are men's entrance rates 40% of womens, or are women just more likely to stick through medical school and graduate?
The factors in between are likely much more complicated, but if men are entering medical school at the same (or greater) rate than women, it should be determined why they are graduating less than women.
Historically, affirmative action is in place to combat barriers to entry, not to graduation.
Federal data show that female students became the majority in 1979 and for the past decade have accounted for about 57 percent of enrollment at degree-granting institutions.
Federal data show that female students became the majority in 1979 and for the past decade have accounted for about 57 percent of enrollment at degree-granting institutions.
Then yes, if there is an issue with attracting male applicants to specific fields, male-specific scholarships should be granted to those programs.
That said, women have been known to have broken into most fields quite readily in the last 40 years, with STEM being a looming exception (though that tide is turning as well) which is why most initiatives in the last decade focus on STEM fields.
But how do we determine which gender disparities are caused by barriers and which are caused by more subtle socialization differences or even innate difference?
Why are teachers predominantly women? Systematic discrimination against male teachers? Of all jobs where we would want gender parity, wouldn't teaching be at the forefront? Especially in an era when boys are doing worse and worse than girls at every grade, and the gender gap in post-secondary education is getting wider and wider.
Should we be offering scholarships to make it easier for men to get into medical school? Women now make up 60 per cent of medical school graduates which, aside from any other considerations, is a major factor in the family doctor shortage, as women doctors work substantially fewer hours than male doctors and are much more likely to take extended breaks from their practice.
These aren't really relevant data points. Men still make up more than 50% of those attending medical school. The question shouldn't be about getting more of them in, it should be about why women are excelling more.
Your excuse for why men aren't succeeding at as-high a rate as women in grade school is that there isn't enough gender equality in the teacher role. However, in medical school where women are outperforming men, women make up less than a third of the educator roles.
As for women working shorter hours, it should be noted that both young women AND men are working significantly reduced hours in the medical field. Long hours are something that is archaic and declining regardless of gender.
It's been found that women also perform better in preventative care roles, especially so with other women.
Ben Shapiro is so right here the Dems are hell bent on marching down the same path that caused the election loss. Keep it up and we'll see 8 years of Trump.
Ben Shapiro is so right here the Dems are hell bent on marching down the same path that caused the election loss. Keep it up and we'll see 8 years of Trump.
If there's anyone that's interested in giving helpful and relevant advice to democrats, it's definitely Ben Shapiro.
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Not sure if this was posted earlier, but an interesting article from May.
A long read, but in light of how the election unfolded, worthwhile.
The basic idea is that in Plato's Republic, there is a discussion in which Socrates is involved in which he makes the case that late stage democracy creates an environment which makes it possible for tyranny to arise.
And it is when a democracy has ripened as fully as this, Plato argues, that a would-be tyrant will often seize his moment.
He is usually of the elite but has a nature in tune with the time — given over to random pleasures and whims, feasting on plenty of food and sex, and reveling in the nonjudgment that is democracy’s civil religion. He makes his move by “taking over a particularly obedient mob” and attacking his wealthy peers as corrupt. If not stopped quickly, his appetite for attacking the rich on behalf of the people swells further. He is a traitor to his class — and soon, his elite enemies, shorn of popular legitimacy, find a way to appease him or are forced to flee. Eventually, he stands alone, promising to cut through the paralysis of democratic incoherence. It’s as if he were offering the addled, distracted, and self-indulgent citizens a kind of relief from democracy’s endless choices and insecurities. He rides a backlash to excess—“too much freedom seems to change into nothing but too much slavery” — and offers himself as the personified answer to the internal conflicts of the democratic mess. He pledges, above all, to take on the increasingly despised elites. And as the people thrill to him as a kind of solution, a democracy willingly, even impetuously, repeals itself.
Last edited by DeluxeMoustache; 11-16-2016 at 12:01 PM.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to DeluxeMoustache For This Useful Post:
